I 

Boom  of  tfjc  Closeti 

jjop  anti 
Cra&e  Agreements 


WORKINGMEN  EMANCIPATED 

CONTRACTS  TO  EMPLOY  ONLY 
UNION  MEN  ARE  CRIMINAL 
CONSPIRACIES 


EMPLOYERS  AND  WORKMEN 
MAKING  SUCH  CONTRACTS 
LIABLE  TO  IMPRISONMENT 


IMPORTANT  COURT  DECISION 


!>  "b\ 

a  «-ri 


o. 

n 


ur 

o 

h 

T> 

The  Open  Shop  Vindicated .  Closed  Shop 

Unlawful  and  Criminal .  Subject  to  Fine 
and  Imprisonment  in  Penitentiary. 

Labor  Unions  a  Trust  in  Restraint 
of  Trade  Same  as  Indus¬ 
trial  Trusts. 

Every  business  man,  every  professional  man, 
every  working-man,  should  read  the  accompanying 
quotations  from  the  notable  decision  of  Judges 
Adams,  Windes,  and  Ball,  who  constitute  the  Ap¬ 
pellate  Court  of  Cook  County,  Illinois. 

Under  this  decision,  the  “open  shop”  for  which 
employers  have  been  contending,  and  which  is  now 
being  so  generally  insisted  upon  by  employers  under 
the  leadership  of  the  Citizens’  Industrial  Associ¬ 
ation  of  America,  is  upheld,  while  the  “closed  shop” 
agreements  exacted  from  employers  by  labor  unions 
are  an  illegal  infringement  of  contract  rights,  and 
agreements  binding  employers  to  hire  none  but 
union  men  are  an  illegal  abridgement  of  liberty, 
discriminating  in  favor  of  one  class  of  working 
people  and  excluding  all  others. 

The  employer  who  signs  a  “closed  shop”  contract 
and  the  union  which  secures  such  a  contract  by 
threats  of  strikes,  boycotts,  etc.,  are  liable  to  the 
criminal  laws  for  conspiring  to  .injure  the  “prop¬ 
erty  rights”  of  a  workman  in  his  labor. 

An  employer  who  makes  a  contract  to  employ 
only  union  men,  or  only  non-union  men,  lays  him¬ 
self  liable  to  punishment  under  the  criminal  and 
civil  law.  Any  person  may  enforce  his  right  to  be 
protected  against  this  conspiracy  when  he  seeks 
employment  in  any  workshop,  store,  factory,  or 
other  place  of  business. 

3 


It  is  a  crime  to  attempt  to  force  a  “closed  shop” 
agreement  on  an  employer,  or  demand  his  signature 
to  such  a  contract,  because  it  is  a  crime  to  seek 
to  influence  any  one  to  commit  a  crime. 

The  decision  is  regarded  as  declaring  all  “closed 
shop”  agreements  to  be  not  only  illegal  and  crim¬ 
inal,  but  null  and  void  if  secured  under  duress  or 
threats  of  strikes,  boycotts,  etc.  Under  this  de¬ 
cision,  the  one  per  cent,  who  control  the  ten  per 
cent,  of  labor  of  the  country,  who  are  banded  to¬ 
gether  as  trades  unionists,  can  no  longer  dictate 
the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which  the  free  and 
independent  ninety  per  cent,  of  peaceful  and  law- 
abiding  citizens  may  be  employed. 

The  case  came  before  the  court  on  appeal  from 
the  injunction  granted  by  Judge  Holdom  against 
the  strikers  at  the  plant  of  the  Kellog  Switchboard 
Company.  The  “closed  shop”  contract  is  a  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  guaranteeing  “life,  liberty,  and  prop¬ 
erty,”  together  with  the  further  guarantee  that 
the  privileges  shall  never  be  abridged,  and  prohib¬ 
iting  discrimination  between  citizens.  In  the  opin¬ 
ion  of  eminent  lawyers  and  judges  the  decision  will 
be  sustained  by  the  higher  court,  in  the  event  of 
an  appeal.  As  no  question  of  interstate  commerce 
is  involved,  it  is  not  probable  the  case  will  reach  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court. 

It  will  encourage  employers  in  their  contention 
for  the  universal  adoption  of  the  “open  shop”  pol¬ 
icy,  and  will  eventually  sound  the  death-knell  of  the 
illegal,  criminal,  and  un-American  “closed  shop.” 

CHICAGO  CHRONICLE  EDITORIAL* 

The  following  concise  review  of  the  decision  is 
quoted  from  a  very  able  editorial  in  the  Chicago 
Chronicle : 

“CLOSED  SHOP  UNLAWFUL  AND  CRIMINAL. 

“Of  all  the  court  decisions  affecting  the  right  of 
contract  none  is  of  such  vital  importance  to  em¬ 
ployers  and  employees  as  the  one  recently  handed 


down  by  the  Apellate  Court  of  Cook  County  con¬ 
cerning  what  is  known  as  the  ‘closed  shop’  contract, 
for  it  goes  to  the  very  heart  of  the  question  out  of 
which  arises  the  chief  contention  between  labor 
unions  and  employers. 

“The  decision  of  the  Appellate  Court  specifically 
declares  that  the  parties  to  such  contracts,  if  com¬ 
pulsion  be  used,  are  guilty  of  an  unlawful  act,  and 
if  entered  into  voluntarily  are  guilty  of  a  criminal 
conspiracy.  These  declarations  are  based  upon  the 
accepted  principles  of  common  law,  the  guarantees 
of  the  State  and  the  National  Constitution,  and  the 
specific  language  of  the  criminal  statutes. 

“Under  the  law  of  contracts  it  is  not  only  un¬ 
lawful  to  compel  one  to  execute  a  contract,  but  a 
contract  executed  under  duress  is  voidable.  Such  is 
the  nature  of  most  of  the  ‘closed  shop’  contracts, 
for,  although  the  employer  apparently  may  exercise 
free  will,  the  fact  remains  that  the  majority  of 
closed  shop  contracts  are  executed  to  avoid  a  strike 
or  to  end  one  already  existing,  and  the  court  de¬ 
clares  that  ‘duress  exists  when  a  person  is  induced 
to  perform  an  act  to  avoid  a  threatened  and  im¬ 
pending  calamity.’ 

“The  ‘closed  shop’  contract  is  in  itself  a  denial 
of  freedom  of  contract  both  to  employers  and  to 
non-union  workman,  and  is  therefore  a  violation  of 
fundamental  law.  Freedom  of  contract  has  been 
defined  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  as  both 
a  liberty  and  a  property  right.  Labor  is  declared 
to  be  property,  and,  therefore,  to  deprive  the  laborer 
and  employer  of  this  right  to  contract  with  one 
another  is  held  to  be  a  violation  of  Section  2,  Arti¬ 
cle  2,  of  the  Constitution  of  Illinois,  which  provides 
that  ‘no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property  without  due  process  of  law.’  The  labor 
unionists  have  the  same  freedom  of  contract  as  any 
other  persons,  but  when  they  enter  upon  a  contract 
for  a  ‘closed  shop’  they  attempt  to  deprive  all  who 
may  not  bo  members  of  unions  of  the  same  right, 
and  therefore  are  guilty  of  an  unlawful  act. 


“The  ‘closed  shop’  contract,  according  to  the  Su¬ 
preme  Court  decision  to  which  the  Apellate  judges 
refer,  is  equally  a  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  guaranteeing 
‘life,  liberty,  and  property,’  as  in  the  Illinois  Con¬ 
stitution,  together  with  the  further  guarantee  that 
the  privileges  shall  never  be  abridged,  and  prohibit¬ 
ing  discriminations  between  citizens. 

“The  criminal  statute  governing  the  offense  is 
explicit.  Where  two  or  more  persons  combine  by 
unlawful  means  to  prevent  any  person  from  obtain¬ 
ing  employment  Section  158  of  the  Criminal  Code 
provides  for  both  a  fine  and  imprisonment. 

“Under  this  law,  as  interpreted  by  the  decision, 
employers  and  labor  unionists  who  have  entered 
into  an  agreement  for  a  ‘closed  shop’  are  guilty  of 
an  unlawful  act,  which,  if  voluntarily  performed, 
constitutes  a  criminal  conspiracy.  Neither  employers 
nor  labor  unionists  who  hereafter  enter  into  agree¬ 
ments  for  a  ‘closed  shop’  Can  plead  ignorance  of 
their  legal  rights  in  palliation.  If  the  employer  be 
coerced  he  is  nevertheless  guilty  of  an  unlawful  act 
for  which  there  are  ample  remedies  at  law  ;  if  he 
voluntarily  enters  into  such  a  contract  he  can  be 
prosecuted  under  the  criminal  statutes. 

“The  ‘closed  shop’  is  the  crux  of  the  whole  labor 
union  situation.  It  is  not  a  subject  for  legislation 
to  be  made  the  shuttlecock  of  vociferous  dema¬ 
gogues,  but  one  to  be  dealt  with  by  the  dispassion¬ 
ate  judgment  of  the  courts.  There  is  every  reason 
to  believe  that  the  Supreme  Court  will  take  the 
same  view  of  ‘closed  shop’  contracts  as  that  held 
by  Judges  Adams,  Windes,  and  Ball,  of  the  Appel¬ 
late  Court,  for  the  latter  are  all  men  of  long  judi¬ 
cial  experience,  and  of  able  and  temperate  judg¬ 
ment. 

“Moreover,  the  decision  of  the  Appellate  Court 
rests  in  part  upon  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
and  there  is  no  utterance  of  the  Appellate  Court  at 
variance  with  that  decision.” 

6 


THE  TEXT  OF  THE  DECISION. 

The  following  are  brief  quotations  from  the  de¬ 
cision,  but  they  are  so  clear  and  decided  as  to  merit 
the  careful  attention  of  every  good  citizen.  They 
are  of  especial  interest  to  the  man  who  wants  to  be 

* 

a  free  and  independent  workman  and  will  welcome 
deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  trades  unionism. 

“The  purpose  of  the  strike  by  complainant’s  em¬ 
ployees  and  their  prosecution  of  it,  as  described, 
was  to  compel  the  complainant  to  execute  the  agree¬ 
ments  referred  to  and  made  a  part  of  the  bill.  The 
drafts  of  agreements,  three  in  number,  purport  to 
be  with  the  different  unions  whose  members  were 
in  complainant’s  employ.  The  draft  of  agreement 
with  the  Metal  Polishers,  Buffers,  Platers,  Brass 
Holders,  and  Brass  Workers’  International  Union 
of  North  America,  International  Union  of  Steam 
Engineers,  and  International  Brotherhood  of  Sta¬ 
tionary  Firemen  contains  the  following : 

“ Article  1.  The  party  of  the  first  part  hereby 
agrees  to  employ  none  but  members  of  the  aforesaid 
organizations  or  those  who  carry  the  regular  work¬ 
ing  card  of  the  said  organizations,  provided  the 
various  crafts  will  furnish  such  competent  help  as 
may  be  required  by  the  party  of  the  first  part  with¬ 
in  twenty-four  hours  after  notification. 

“ Article  7.  There  shall  be  a  steward  for  each 
craft  in  each  factory  appointed  by  the  organization, 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  see  that  the  men  working 
in  said  factory  belong  to  the  organizations. 

“ Article  8.  It  is  hereby  agreed  by  the  party  of 
the  first  part  that  the  business  agent  of  the  party 
of  the  second  part  shall  have  the  privilege  of  inter¬ 
viewing  any  member  of  the  party  of  the  second 
part  in  the  offices  of  the  party  of  the  first  part  dur¬ 
ing  business  hours. 

“ Article  10.  A  sympathetic  strike  to  protect 
union  principles  shall  not  be  considered  a  violation 
of  this  agreement. 


7 


“Article  11.  All  the  apprentices  shall  belong  to 
the  union  and  carry  the  working  card  of  the  organ¬ 
ization. 

“ Article  12.  The  number  of  apprentices  not  to 
exceed  one  for  ten  men  or  less  of  the  different 
crafts. 


PURPOSE  TO  EXFORCE  CLOSED  SHOP. 

“That  the  purpose  of  the  strike  was  to  compel 
the  execution  of  the  drafts  of  agreement  is  clear. 
It  is  averred  in  the  sworn  bill  and  deposed  to  in  the 
affidavits  of  De  Wolf,  complainant’s  president;  Kel¬ 
logg,  its  secretary  and  treasurer,  and  Edwards,  its 
superintendent,  that  business  agents  of  the  different 
unions  called  on  complainant  and  insisted  on  its 
executing  the  agreements  and  that,  when  complain¬ 
ant’s  president  refused,  on  the  ground  that  the  pro¬ 
posed  agreements  were  unreasonable,  it  was  threat¬ 
ened  by  one  of  said  business  agents  that  unless 
complainant  would  sign  the  agreements  a  strike 
would  be  called  and  that  said  business  agents  called 
a  strike,  in  response  to  which  about  five  hundred 
of  complainant’s  employees  quit  its  employ.  Appel¬ 
lant’s  counsel  admit  in  their  brief  the  purpose  of 
the  strike  is  to  bring  about  the  execution  of  the  con¬ 
tracts,  and  at  least  three  of  the  appellants  so  admit 
in  their  answers.  It  is  unlawful  to  compel  one  to 
execute  any  contract.  A  contract  executed  under 
duress  is  voidable,  and  duress  is  present  where  a 
party  ‘ is  constrained,  under  circumstances  which 
deprive  him  of  the  exercise  of  free  will,  to  agree  or 
to  perform  the  act  sought  to  be  avoided .’ 

“Duress  exists  when  a  person  is  induced  to  per¬ 
form  an  act  to  avoid  a  threatened  and  impending 
calamity.  Especially  was  the  purpose  to  compel 
complainant  to  execute  the  agreements  in  question 
an  unlawful  purpose.  Article  1  of  the  agreement 
strikes  at  the  right  of  contract  and  provides  that 
complainant  shall  employ  none  but  members  of  the 
several  unions,  thus  discriminating  in  favor  of  one 
class  of  men  and  excluding  all  others.  In  Matthews 

8 


vs.  The  People,  202  Ill.,  389,  the  court,  discussing 
the  constitutionality  of  the  free  employment  agency 
act,  says  (page  401)  :  ‘An  employer  whose  work¬ 
men  have  left  him  and  gone  on  a  strike,  partic¬ 
ularly  when  they  have  done  so  without  any  justi¬ 
fiable  cause,  is  entitled  to  contract  with  other  labor¬ 
ers  or  workmen  to  fill  the  places  of  those  who  have 
left  him.  Any  workman  seeking  work  has  a  right 
to  make  a  contract  with  such  employer  to  work  for 
him  in  the  place  of  any  one  of  the  men  who  have 
left  him  to  go  out  upon  a  strike.  Therefore  the  pro¬ 
hibition  contained  in  Section  8  strikes  at  the  right 
of  contract,  both  on  the  part  of  the  laborer  and  of 
the  employer.  It  is  now  ivell  settled  that  the  priv¬ 
ilege  of  contracting  is  both  a  liberty  and  a  property 
right.  Liberty  includes  the  right  to  make  and  enforce 
contracts .  because  the  right  to  make  and  enforce 
contracts  is  included  in  the  right  to  acquire  prop¬ 
erty.  Labor  is  property.  To  deprive  the  laborer  and 
the  employer  of  this  right  to  contract  with  one  an¬ 
other  is  to  violate  Section  2  of  Article  2  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  Illinois,  which  provides  that  ‘ no  person 
shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty ,  or  property  with¬ 
out  due  process  of  law.1  It  is  equally  a  violation  of 
the  Fifth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  The  provision  em¬ 
bodied  in  Section  8  ‘is  a  discrimination  between 
different  classes  of  citizens  founded  on  no  justifiable 
ground  and  an  attempt  to  exercise  legislative  power 
in  behalf  of  certain  classes,  and  against  other 
classes,  whether  laborers  seeking  work  or  employ¬ 
ers.  It  falls  under  the  condemnation  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution1 

“ The  agreement  in  question  would ,  if  executed, 
tend  to  create  a  monopoly  in  favor  of  the  members 
of  the  different  unions ,  to  the  exclusion  of  workmen 
not  members  of  such  unions,  and  are,  in  this  re¬ 
spect,  unlawful.  Contracts  tending  to  create  a  mo¬ 
nopoly  are  void. 

“The  legislature*  of  the  State  cannot  create  a 
monopoly. 


9 


Violated  Criminal  Code . 


u  The  purpose  of  the  strikers  is  in  violation  of  the 
criminal  code,  which  provides  as  follows : 

Sec.  158.  If  any  two  or  more  persons  shall  com¬ 
bine  for  the  purpose  of  depriving  the  owner  or  possessor 
of  property  of  its  lawful  use  and  management,  or  of 
preventing,  by  threats,  suggestions  of  danger,  or  by  any 
unlawful  means,  any  person  from  being  employed  by 
or  obtaining  employment  from  any  such  owner  or 
possessor  of  property,  on  such  terms  as  the  parties  con¬ 
cerned  may  agree  upon,  such  persons  so  offending  shall 
be  fined  not  exceeding  $500  or  confined  in  the  county 
jail  not  exceeding  six  months. 

Sec.  159.  If  any  person  shall,  by  threat,  intimi¬ 
dation  or  unlawful  interference,  seek  to  prevent  any 
other  person  from  working  or  from  obtaining  work  at 

any  lawful  business,  on  any  terms  that  he  may  see  fit, 
such  person  so  offending  shall  be  fined  not  exceeding 
$200. 

Not  only  was  the  purpose  of  the  strike  unlawful 
but  the  means  used  to  achieve  the  unlawful  purpose 
were  unlawful. 

“a  man’s  business  is  iiis  property. 

“  ‘The  freedom  of  business  action  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  all  commercial  and  industrial  enter¬ 
prises.’ 

“We  know  of  no  well-considered  case,  or.  indeed, 
of  any  case,  holding  that  a  combination  of  persons 
to  injure  the  business  of  another  is  not  unlawful. 
That  the  appellants,  and  other*  associated  with 
them,  acted  in  concert,  in  unlawfully  endeavoring 
to  injure,  and,  in  fact,  injuring  complainant’s  busi¬ 
ness  for  an  unlawful  purpose,  is  fully  sustained  by 
the  evidence. 

“Each  conspirator  is  responsible  for  the  acts  and 
declarations  of  every  other  conspirator  in  further¬ 
ance  of  the  common  purpose.  It  i&  an  indispensable 

10 


condition  of  the  enjoyment  by  each  citizen  of  the 
liberty  and  rights  guaranteed  by  the  constitution 
and  laws  that  he  shall  respect  and  not  unlawfully 
infringe  upon  the  liberty  or  rights  of  any  other 
citizen.  This  cannot  be  done  with  impunity.” 

Opinions  of  Prominent  Chicago 
Attorneys. 

“It  is  impossible  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of 
this  decision,”  said  Horace  K.  Tenney,  in  an  inter¬ 
view.  “Judge  Adams  is  one  of  the  most  eminent 
jurists  on  the  bench,  and  I  am  confident  his  decision 
will  be  sustained  in  the  State  Supreme  Court,  to 
which  the  cases  are  likely  to  go  on  another  appeal. 
Briefly,  the  grounds  of  the  decision  may  be  said 
to  be  that  the  ‘closed  shop’  contracts  are  opposed  to 
sound  public  policy,  as  well  as  the  statutory  and 
common  law,  and  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of 
Illinois.  Why  they  are  opposed  to  public  policy  is 
because  they  are  agreements  in  restraint  of  trade. 
The  reasoning  and  the  law  upon  that  point  are 
clear  and  unmistakable.  The  strike  was  called  to 
enforce  the  contracts  submitted  by  the  union  for 
the  closed  shop ;  and  the  court  has  squarely  decided 
in  favor  of  the  open  shop,  which  is  the  open  door  of 
trade  and  commerce  in  the  nation.  The  closed  shop 
is  simply  a  boycott  of  workmen,  and  no  court  in 
this  country  has  yet  decided  that  before  a  man  is 
eligible  for  work  in  a  factory  or  store  lie  must  have 

a  permit  or  union-labor  card  from  the  officials  of 

«* 

certain  organizations  whose  decrees  have  no  binding 
force  in  law. 

“A  remarkable  feature  of  the  case  was  that  Judge 
Adams  held  the  closed  shop  contract  to  be  a  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  Criminal,  as  well  as  the  Civil  Code  of 
the  State  of  Illinois.  On  this  point  the  decision  is 
significant,  in  that  it  provides  the  employers  with  a 
powerful  weapon  in  future  negotiations  with  labor 
leaders.  It  is  now  clear  that  by  the  very  fact  a 
labor  leader  or  delegation  of  members  from  a  union 
present  a  copy  of  a  closed  shop  agreement  for  an 

11 


employer’s  signature  the  person  or  persons  doing 
such  a  thing  are  amenable  to  the  Criminal  Code, 
and  may  be  given  a  term  in  the  county  jail  for  the 
mere  act  of  demanding  or  asking  the  employer’s 
signature.” 

employers’  weapon  of  defense. 

“It  is  one  of  the  most  important  decisions  ever 
rendered  in  the  courts  of  Illinois,”  said  Attorney 
M.  L.  Coffeen.  “It  points  out  clearly  wherein  the 
operations  of  labor  unions  enter  the  domain  of  the 
criminal.  It  will  be  an  unassailable  barrier  and 
protection  for  employers,  as  the  terrorism  of  labor 
unions  is  directly  rebuked  by  Judge  Adams.  It  is 

'A 

not  likely  that  the  contract  agreements  for  the 
‘closed  shop’  can  survive  this  decision.  The  court 
,  holds  that  the  closed  shop  is  a  crime.  So  the  em¬ 
ployer  will  have  unanswerable  reasons  in  future 
for  refusing  to  become  particeps  criminis  with  labor 
union  leaders  in  any  agreement,  oral,  written,  or 
implied,  for  the  maintenance  of  the  closed  shop 
anywhere  in  Illinois.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say 
that  the  opinion  means  the  legal  death  of  the  closed 
shop  and  the  triumph  of  the  non-union  man’s  right 
to  an  open  shop,  where  he  may  have  an  equal 
chance  with  the  union  worker  to  obtain  and  retain 
employment.” 

STOP  VIOLENCE  and  assaults. 

Attorney  A.  F.  Hatch  discussed  the  decision  as 
follows : 

“This  decision  not  only  is  based  upon  the  highest 
authority  but  it  commends  itself  to  the  reason  of 
every  dispassionate  and  fair-minded  person.  The 
closed  shop  is  simply  an  attempt  to  establish  a 
local  monopoly  by  excluding  from  the  shop  all  per¬ 
sons  not  members  of  the  union  or  unions  there  em¬ 
ployed.  It  is  clearly  an  illegal  combination  for  the 
purpose  of  wu*ong  and  injury  to  others  for  the  ben¬ 
efit  of  the  members  of  the  conspiracy,  and  is  prop¬ 
erly  held  to  be  unlawful  and  criminal.  It  follows 

12 


as  a  natural  consequence  that  any  party  to  such  a 
conspiracy,  either  as  an  employer  or  as  an  em¬ 
ployee,  is  liable  to  criminal  prosecution  and  pun¬ 
ishment. 

“The  promulgation  and  enforcement  of  the  prin¬ 
ciples  laid  down  in  this  decision  will  be  wholesome 
in  many  ways  and  will  tend  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
violence  and  assaults  upon  non-unionists  who  are 
satisfied  to  labor  upon  the  terms  offered  by  the  em¬ 
ployers. 

“Any  combination  of  individuals  for  the  purpose 
of  injuring  others  or  depriving  them  of  their  lawful 
right  to  contract  or  to  engage  in  employment  ceases 
to  be  an  organization  protected  by  the  law  and  be¬ 
comes  a  conspiracy  as  criminal  as  the  Molly  Ma- 
quires  or  Ku-Klux  Klan.  The  sooner  such  organi¬ 
zations  are  rooted  out  the  better  for  the  peace  and 
security  of  the  community.” 

CLOSED  SHOP  A  CRIME. 

“The  exhaustive  and  able  opinion  of  the  Appel¬ 
late  Court,  just  rendered  by  Judge  Adams,  the  pre¬ 
siding  justice,  should  prove  epoch-making,”  said 
Levy  Mayer,  Esq.  “The  opinion  is  a  thorough  and 
rugged  review,  both  upon  principle  and  authority, 
of  one  of  the  most  important  questions  that  have 
ever  confronted  the  employer.  It  is  the  first  opin¬ 
ion  rendered  in  this  State  upon  the  question  of 
the  legality  of  a  contract  by  which  the  employer 
agrees  not  to  employ  non-union  labor. 

“All  other  economic  and  legal  questions  aside,  it 
now  becomes  in  this  State  a  complete  answer  to  the 
demand  of  the .  closed  shop  that  the  law  stamps 
such  an  arrangement  as  a  criminal  conspiracy.  It 
is  elementary  that  the  crime  of  conspiracy  consists 
of  a  combination  of  two  or  more  persons  to  effect  an 
illegal  purpose,  either  by  legal  or  illegal  means  or 
to  effect  a  legal  purpose  by  illegal  means.  The  dis¬ 
pute  has  always  been  as  to  whether  a  contract  not 
to  employ  non-union  labor  is  an  agreement  to  effect 
an  illegal  purpose.  It  has  been  asserted  over  and 


J 


over  again  by  those  advocating  the  closed  shop  that 
an  agreement  to  employ  only  union  labor  is  per¬ 
fectly  legal  and  binding. 

‘‘The  courts  have  frequently  heretofore  held  ille¬ 
gal  an  agreement  among  members  of  an  association 
to  withdraw  their  patronage  from  any  one  who  sold 
to  one  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  association  or 
an  agreement  which  permitted  members  of  an  asso¬ 
ciation  to  make  purchases  only  from  such  as  sell 
exclusively  to  members  of  the  association.  I  have 
never  been  able  to  appreciate  the  distinctions  which 

some  courts  have  endeavored  to  make  between  cases 

% 

of  the  kind  I  have  indicated  and  cases  where  the 
right  to  employ  non-union  labor  was  involved. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  persons  may  combine  for 
legitimate  purposes  and  that  an  individual  may  re¬ 
fuse  to  deal  with  any  particular  person  or  class  of 
persons  and  base  such  refusal  upon  mere  whim  or 
caprice,  but  it  has  been  my  opinion,  and  I  am  more 
than  gratified  to  find  it  sustained  by  the  Appellate 
Court,  that  a  number  of  persons  cannot  combine 
with  the  object  of  compelling  the  adoption  of  a  con¬ 
tract  which  prohibits  the  employer  from  employing 
non-union  labor. 

CONTRACT  IS  A  CRIMINAL  CONSPIRACY. 

“If  such  a  contract  is •  entered  into  it  is  illegal 
and  under  the  decision  of  the  Appellate  Court  con¬ 
stitutes  a  criminal  conspiracy ,  to  tchich  not  only 
the  union  hut  the  employer  becomes  a  party ,  and 
for  which  not  only  the  employee  but  the  employer 
is  subject  to  fine  or  imprisonment  in  the  peniten¬ 
tiary ,  or  both ,  under  our  criminal  statutes.  There 
are  a  vast  number  of  manufacturing  concerns  that 
have  written  contracts  with  labor  unions  which 
prohibit  the  employment  of  non-union  labor.  Un¬ 
der  this  decision  of  the  Appellate  Court  many  hun¬ 
dreds ,  if  not  thousands,  of  employers ,  as  well  as 
many  thousands  of  employees,  have  thus  deliber¬ 
ately  become  parties  to  a  criminal  conspiracy  of 
which  the  contracts  furnish  the  written  and  un¬ 
it 


I 

answerable  proof.  Where  such  arrangements  exist 
the  crime  cannot  be  wiped  out  by  the  cancellation 
of  the  contracts,  but  a  continued  recognition  of  the 
binding  force  of  such  contracts,  in  the  light  of  the 
recent  decision  of  the  Appellate  Court,  may  create 
trouble  of  a  kind  little  dreamed  of  by  those  who 
have  permitted  themselves  to  be  forced  or  lulled 
into  them. 

“The  fact  that  laborers  have  the  right  to  refuse 
to  work  for  a  man  who  does  not  employ  union  labor, 
or  in  order  to  better  their  condition,  or  advance 
their  wages,  does  not  authorize  the  making  of  a 
contract  under  which  the  employer  is  compelled  to 
employ  only  union  labor  and  to  discharge  non¬ 
union  labor.  The  rights  of  the  employer  and  em¬ 
ployee  are  and  should  be  synonymous ,  but  em¬ 
ployees  cannot ,  by  combination  or  union ,  without 
committing  the  crime  of  conspiracy ,  force  employ¬ 
ers  to  agree  to  employ  only  union  labor.  When 
employer's  do  become  parties  to  such  an  agreement 
they  are  equally  guilty  of  conspiracy. 

“The  opinion  of  the  Appellate  Courts  should  be 
studied  at  once  by  every  employer  of  labor ,  and 
when  the  employer  awakes  to  the  situation  that  he 
is  a  party  to  a  criminal  conspiracy ,  the  floodgates 
will  open  and  non-union  labor  will,  I  think,  re¬ 
ceive  the  protection  that  all  of  the  injunctions  and 
processes  of  the  courts  have  heretofore  been  unable 
to  give  them.” 


15 


/ 


3  011 


2  07284681 


The  Open  Shop  Guarantees 
Industrial  Peace  and 
Industrial  Freedom. 


Compliance  with  the  provisions-  of  t 
court  decision  published  in  this  leaflet  Wi 
secure  industrial  peace  and  industrial  freedor 

Employers  should  adopt  the  “open  sho 
policy,  and  put  it  into  force  and  effect 
quickly  as  possible. 

Another  duty  of  the  greatest  importan 
devolves  on  all  employers.  When  reduci 
the  number  of  workmen,  because  of  the  fa 
ing  off  in  business,  they  should  be  loyal 
the  men  who  have  been  loyal  to  them.  Yo 
true  and  tried  friends,  good  citizens  w 
respect  and  obey  the  law,  they  should  ha 
preference  over  the  anarchists,  socialis 
walking  delegates,  agitators,  trouble  makeij 
who  sought  to  destroy  your  business,  and  w 
are  largely  responsible  for  the  calamities  fro 
which  business  men  and  working  men  ha 
suffered. 

Published  by  the 

EMPLOYERS’  ASSOCIATIO 
Dayton,  Ohio. 

NOTE. — This  pamphlet  should  be  read  by  buj 
ness  men,  professional  men,  and  working  men. 

16 


